Sec. 4. A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

Connected & on the Go; Broadband Goes Wireless, Report of the FCC Wireless Broadband Access Task Force, p. 33 Feb. 2005: "For instance, when the town of Grand Haven, Michigan determined
that it wanted to provide its residents with higher speeds and better coverage than was
available.98 The city found a willing partner in Ottowa Wireless, a local business, which
was granted a non-exclusive contract to place access points on city-owned buildings and
utility poles. Grand Haven now has Wi-Fi coverage over its entire six square mile area at
subscription rates comparable to those available in larger markets. Ottowa Wireless has
also begun deployment of a VoIP handset to provide voice service throughout the
coverage area, bringing competition to the local phone market for the first time."

Approved $30m loans in 300 cities impacting 2.4 million people and 900,000 households. Borrowers have generated $50m in revenue.

Broadband agency failures warrant closure, Detroit News Jan 19, 2006 (" news that the state agency that backed the authority with a $50 million line of credit is writing off $10 million in administrative costs and bad loans should leave no doubt that it's time to pull the plug. ... The authority has been mired in controversy since its inception. The organization has employed as many as 13 people at a cost of $1.3 million a year in salaries. The top three executives earn between $142,300 and $149,400 a year. ")

Sec. 252. (1) A public entity may provide telecommunication services within its boundaries if the public entity has complied with the requirements of section 14 of the metropolitan extension telecommunications right-of-way oversight act, 2002 PA 48, MCL 484.3114, and all of the following apply:
(a) The public entity has issued a request for competitive sealed bids to provide telecommunication services.
(b) The public entity has received less than 3 qualified bids from private providers.
(c) It is more than 60 days from the date the request for bids was issued.
(d) The public entity is providing the telecommunication services under the same terms and conditions as required under the request for bids issued pursuant to subdivision (a).
(2) Except as provided under subsection (3), a public entity shall not provide telecommunication services outside its boundaries.
(3) Two or more public entities may jointly request bids under subsection (1) and provide telecommunication services if all participating public entities meet the requirements of this section. If a public entity does not receive a qualified bid as required under subsection (1), the public entity may contract with another public entity to receive telecommunication services.
(4) A public entity shall not establish a board or other entity for the purpose of providing regulation of a private provider of services under this section.
(5) This section does not apply to all of the following:
(a) Public safety systems.
(b) Systems used only for the internal use of the public entity or for the sharing of information between the public entity and another public entity.
(c) A public entity that is currently providing telecommunication services or that has held a public hearing by November 1, 2005 on a proposal to provide telecommunication services, or has issued a request for bids by November 1, 2005 to provide telecommunication services, or has an enforceable contract to begin construction of a telecommunication system by November 1, 2005.
(d) A public entity that is currently providing service in another public entity’s boundaries.
(e) Services offered by a public entity to the public within a facility owned and operated by the public entity.
(f) Systems or services used or offered by 1 or more public entities or consortiums to advance or promote the public health, safety, and provision of e-government services.
(6) This section may not be construed to prevent a municipally-owned utility from providing to its energy customers, either directly or indirectly, any energy related service involving the transfer or receipt of information or data concerning the use, measurement, monitoring, or management of energy services provided by the municipally-owned utility, including services such as load management or automated meter reading.
(7) As used in this section, “public entity” means a county, city, village, township, or any agency or subdivision of the public entity.

H.B. 4600, 93rd LEGIS. (2005). H.B, 4600 proposed that “a governmental entity shall not provide a communications service except for the use of the entity itself.” Id. at § 3(2). Ultimately, a different bill was signed into law that allows a public entity to provide telecommunications services if it complies with certain requirements. Michigan H.B. 5237, 93rd LEGIS. § 252 (2005). - FTC Report, n. 164.

Law: Sec. 211a. A provider of any telecommunication service utilizing a new or emerging technology shall register with
the commission. The registration shall include all of the following information:
(a) The name of the provider.
(b) A description of the services provided.
(c) The address and telephone number of the provider’s principal office.
(d) The address and telephone number of the provider’s registered agent authorized to receive service in this state.
(e) Any other information the commission considers necessary.

In the matter, on the Commission's own motion, to commence an investigation into voice over Internet protocol issues in Michigan. Case No. U-14073

U-14073 - Commission's Own Motion (investigation of VOIP) - 3/16/2004 HTML | PDF Comments are due by April 2, 2004.

In order to formulate an informed, consistent regulatory policy, the Commission would like to obtain information about VOIP activity in Michigan. The Commission, therefore, requests comments on VOIP activity in Michigan on the following topics that may be affected by both state and federal law

a. The number and type of VOIP providers that are providing service in Michigan, including incumbent local exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, and unlicensed VOIP providers.

b. Estimations of the proper degree of regulation, based on transmission method, to ensure Michigan citizens are protected while using VOIP, while allowing VOIP services to avoid unnecessarily burdensome regulations.

c. Information regarding the effect of VOIP on telephone numbering resources, including non-licensed VOIP providers&rsquo; access to numbering resources through licensed telecommunication carriers and VOIP end users&rsquo; ability to port their current landline or wireless telephone number to their VOIP equipment.

d. Access to emergency calling, including VOIP end users&rsquo; unrestricted access to 9-1-1, non-carrier charges for 9-1-1 access, and public safety answering points costs to geographically locate VOIP callers and provide a call back number.

e. Whether VOIP providers may participate in, and have access to, the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) to provide service to rural areas, hospitals, and schools; the ability of VOIP carriers to provide low-cost service similar to Lifeline and Link-up for low-income end users; and the need for VOIP end-users to contribute to the federal USF.

f. VOIP services&rsquo; effect on the current access charge structure.

h. Other technical issues, such as internet virus potential, power outage risks, consumer protections including privacy, quality of service, and accessibility by local, state and federal law enforcement.

The Commission recognizes that the FCC has commenced a rulemaking proceeding to determine the proper federal regulatory framework for VOIP and that this proceeding may affect the ability of the Commission to formulate a regulatory policy at the state level. However, the FCC&rsquo;s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has just been released, with comment dates yet to be determined, and the FCC may not promulgate a final rule until the end of this year or later.[4] The Commission has a responsibility to the citizens of this state to ask VOIP providers for comments on the topics identified above so that we are in a position to protect both users of VOIP and the customers who may be asked to assume the cost of maintaining a network that may not be supported by VOIP providers.

Wisconsin enters VoIP fray CNET Sept 2003 (reporting "Michigan's Public Utilities Commission ordered that New Jersey-based company to immediately pay fees to support 911 service." Confirmation of this has not been found)

In order to formulate an informed, consistent regulatory policy, the Commission would like to obtain information about VOIP activity in Michigan . The Commission, therefore, requests comments on VOIP activity in Michigan on the following topics that may be affected by both state and federal law:
...
h. Other technical issues, such as internet virus potential, power outage risks, consumer protections including privacy, quality of service, and accessibility by local, state and federal law enforcement.
-- -- U-14073 - Commission's Own Motion (investigation of VOIP) - (MI PUC 3/16/2004 ) HTML | PDF

Wifi Security

A guy reported sat outside a the Re-Union Street Café coffee shop checking his email. When the cop asked him what he was doing, he told him. Neither he, nor the cop, nor the coffee shop owner of the network knew that what he was doing violated state law - yet he was criminally charged. He was reportedly fined $400 and required to do 40 hours of community service.